"Do MiG-29s Matter?" Topic

"When it comes to helping Ukraine continue to keep Russia from gaining air superiority over its skies — a miraculous achievement thus far in the conflict that is now in its third week — all the focus has been on providing the embattled country with a couple of dozen decades-old MiG-29 Fulcrums. This has been an unfortunate distraction."

link

I'm case you missed it, the Russian military previously struck the only Ukrainian facility for deep maintenance on their RD-33 engines, the Motor factory in Lusk.

The MiG-29 maintenance facility in Lviv was just hit--a large hangar and another building were destroyed, and the ramp was cratered in the midst of many non-operational aircraft. Two MiG-23s or MiG-27s may have burned out, based on differences in color between those directly next to the crater and the other aircraft. (It could be that they're coveted with soil or other debris.)

These attacks raise serious questions about whether Ukraine could keep additional MiG-29s operational. Keeping the current fleet operational might require performing engine overhauls in Poland or elsewhere. Whether major airframe repairs are possible is an open question, but they might have to be trucked to Poland on out to other countries

Since we often have Super Bug (F-18E and F) fuselages being trucked up and down our street, I can day that this is a major undertaking. The don't block traffic on the four-lane (each way) highway, but everything here is rated for very heavy loads, they're the definition of "wide load," and it's anything but subtle.

Before the strike yesterday, they were only averaging 5-10 sorties a day. They appear to be having problems dealing with the S-400s that are ringed around the Russian-Ukraine border and when they come across SU-35s. I'm not sure how more Mig-29s would help at this stage. They're having problems maintaining, arming, and getting the aircraft they do have off the ground now, so adding more would just compound the problem.

Repairs can be done in many places, so the loss of that one building isn't the end of the world, and yes, Mig-29s would help keep the Russians from gaining air superiority, and are also a threat to them, since they can provide close air support too.

If needed, they can be used as spare parts donors for other jets too, though I'm sure they'd prefer to keep them airworthy, if possible.

Turning over weapons support decision-making to Putin is just ridiculous, no matter what threats he makes.

"Turning over pursuit decisions to Mao is just ridiculous, no matter what threats he makes."
--MacArthur

Rather doubt that Ukraine will be able to maintain Fast Jets for much longer… BUT… that does not mean that they should not be 'available'.

And look at WW2. Vastly different Tech… but BofB… or Germany in 45. Absolutely incredible feats in production, servicing and aircrew.

And, remember, Ukraine is a Big place. Yes, missiles can hit anywhere… but not all that many missiles in store.

Think Ground to Air is doing a lot of 'Good'.
Russians seem to be keeping out of range… but employing weaponry with high strike capability but relative lack of targeted 'direction'.

I will add.
One of the 'saddest' things I've seen recently, was footage of a (Reportedly Russian) Helo, low down, being hit by AA missile.
Ball of flame and impact.
Jeez… Crew instant 'Crispies'..But… Mothers. GFs, Wives or Kids. All will have to live with that, now on.
No Winners in a War.

This one should NOT have been started.

By all accounts Ukrainian's use of its remaining air defence system and the Russian's discovery that the 2020 edition of the Stinger isn't the same as the 1980s one is driving them to perverse behaviours. Given that to interdict some Russian airstrikes they'd have to enter Russian or Belarussian airspace I don't think more Migs really help. I wonder whether some simple turboprop ground attack or COIN aircraft would do them more good at this stage? I suspect most of the bombardment of cities is being done from artillery that's probably being pretty static.

> "One of the 'saddest' things I've seen recently, was footage of a (Reportedly Russian) Helo, low down, being hit by AA missile.
Ball of flame and impact."

Yes, that video was widely circulated. It was a Mi-24 getting shot down by some sort of MANPADS. Forgetting the human side (which is the most important), from a military/tech standpoint I wish they had shown the video from a bit before the launch. Was the heli even aware, was it launching countermeasures? And why was it flying alone, don't helis fly in pairs over combat zones?

> "Mig-29s would help keep the Russians from gaining air superiority, and are also a threat to them, since they can provide close air support too."

The article addresses this. Apparently neither the remaining Ukrainian Migs nor the ones being considered for donation belong to a current generation. They are outdated and not really capable of challenging Russian fighters in a way that matters. They are also very reliant on ground radar control (which they soon may lose forever) and can't carry equipment for CAS. Not that Mig 29s are meant for CAS anyway.

I agree with the article that more SAM and ground AA capabilities is what Ukraine needs.

Now, that is a point that I have been 'Curious' about since the 80s Cold War era.
Not really 'in the know'… but Modern Fast Jets and Helos require a Huge amount of Maintenance… and parts.
And a Helo 'doesn't Want to fly'… Death Trap without maintenance.

Massive Industry to supply… back then.

Know that UK Troops and Command in Falklands were rightly 'scared' of Pucara… just, they got shot to bits… those planes not taken out on ground.

NOW… Drones can do same Biz… and no crew to die.

Now… not really a serious question… given the present circumstances… but what happened to the Old Ex Vietnam Skyraiders, Broncos, etc.? In a 'Desert Boneyard' somewhere?
Or just destroyed in Fall or scrapped. Just curious?

As to helos, I heard one vet comment that a helo is trying to kill you as soon as it is airborne!

Maybe symbolically they matter, but I think the risk to skilled pilots is not worth it by now. Save these guys to fight another day. Load Ukranians up with weapons that fit the needs of insurgency type operations and keep up the attrition on Russia. Neither side can keep doing this too much longer at this pace.

I think they matter because even the threat of air attack keeps ground attacks spread out and not concentrated as they need to be. Again, think of the Allies in Western Europe in WWII. They could mass forces in any size without concern knowing that no Luftwaffe planes would show up. It also means Russian air strikes have to be prepared to deal with Ukrainian jets, so fewer Russian planes flying ground attack. Look at the Gulf War and all the effort the Allies spent on Saddams few aircraft. I think they are worth it because they will continue to hinder, even psychologically, Russian operations.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I've seen the longer footage clips of the helo shootdown too, though just a couple of times, and it moves fast, but I don't recall seeing them dropping any flares. They were flying quite low, before the attack by the Manpad.

Yes, in Afghanistan the Russians/Soviets flew them in pairs or trios for mutual support, so don't know why this one was flying alone. Perhaps it wasn't, and we just don't see the other(s).

A Mig fleet in-being, much like the German Kriegsmarine, is a threat that needs to be considered by the Russians, and it WILL affect their ops and decision-making.

Mig-29s can be used for CAS, if/when needed, especially since they are so short-legged, with very little endurance.

Even if built in the 1980s, they are not antiques, since the Poles got them from Germany, and they were upgraded to "NATO standard" before they were transferred, from what I've read on-line. That presumably means they can be armed with Sidewinders and other NATO/EU produced AAMs too, which are probably as good, if not better than what the Russians have.

I suspect the Ukrainians won't want them to go head-to-head with Russian air superiority jets (of which there are probably few operating over Ukraine), but they are certainly capable of dealing with any of their strike aircraft and helos, if/when desired.

Great points and I stand corrected.

I have trouble with the "we know better than the Ukrainians what the Ukrainians need" argument coming from Western leaders.

andresf. Good ID… eyes ain't good now. But thought clip that I saw had another helo in view before strike. I cannot find it on my source now!

If a Ground Attack chopper… in a 'flight'…all credit to guys on ground. Chances of survival 'limited'.

So far drones are supplying more CAS for the Ukrainians than all of their MiG-29s plus all of Poland's MiG-29s ever could. They're much cheaper to operate, much harder to detect, trivially cheap to replace (to the point the using them as guided weapons is perfectly reasonable), and cheap to maintain. In fact, 3D printing enthusiasts in Europe are donating their printers to Ukraine so that the Ukrainians and produce replacement parts on-site and on-demand. Speaks to how much lower the stresses are on many parts of drones, compared to fast jets.

They might matter more politically than militarily.

,,,and politically they are an absolute hot potato no one wants to get blamed for bringing the west into a war. Yet they all want someone else to do it???
Go figure?

That is probably about as polite as I can say it without an infraction. Now back to minis,,,.

Defensively, AA systems are cheaper and available for more hours per day than a top-notch fighter. You need air superiority fighters to control the airspace over enemy-held territory, but I think you want THAADs and S-400s over your territory. When you're projecting power you know where you're forces will be operating, where you will be doing CAS, and you can put your fighters there. But you can't put them everywhere, and you don't know where the enemy is going to be operating, so on defense you need to be lots of places.

MiGs are high maintenance and hard to conceal. I'm not sure Ukraine would be able to use them in the short run (but donating them when Ukraine is more secure to rebuild their air force makes sense).

Drones make a lot more sense.

One other aircraft that many former Warsaw Pact countries have that are easier to operate from rough fields (and easier to conceal) are Hinds. I would think giving Ukraine Hinds would be better than MiGs, though they are high maintenance just like the MiGs (though you don't have to maintain a runway or clear road to operate a Hind from).

If Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Germany donated their old Hinds, the US (or EU) could back fill those with other helicopters.

The old MiGs were never upgraded to fire western AAMs, but the nations who have them can donate their stocks of Russian AAMs. Frankly those missiles will be long in tooth by now (the fuel breaks down over time- which is why so many early AMRAAMS had trouble a few years back, require rebuilds). MiGs are multi role, even the old ones, but as noted, they are very short legged, so you not only need to maintain some kind of airfield (even if it is a stretch of road) but it has to be somewhat close to the target.

Better yet, tell the Russians we gave them F-22s. Since they won't see them on radar, any time a Russian plane goes missing, they claim a victory for the Ukrainian F-22. Pretty soon the Russians are terrified and you don't need to send any actual planes anywhere.

We can also say we gave them stealth drones for the same effect.

I would say ,the Ukrainians would find the SU25s more useful with it being a ground attack aircraft ideal for taking out artillery. Bulgaria has around 23 or so of those ironically similar numbers to the touted MIG 29s.